naming the colour
many around the world are realizing.. why in naming the colour, we blind the eye
aristotle: Yet it is not easy to find a formula by which we may determine how far and up to what point a man may go wrong before he incurs blame. But this *difficulty of definition is inherent in every object of perception; such questions of degree are bound up with the circumstances of the individual case, where our only criterion is the perception.
naming the colour ness
for the platonic project to reach fulfillment one beakthru is required: all appeal to intuition and judgement must be eliminated.. as galileo discovered that one could find *a pure formalism for describing physical motion by ignoring secondary qualities and teleological considerations, so, one might suppose, a galileo of human behavior might succeed in reducing all semantic considerations (appeal to meanings) to the techniques of syntactic (formal) manipulation
*by blinding/killing et al
The belief that such a total formalization of knowledge must be possible soon came to dominate Western thought.
Hobbes was the first to make explicit the syntactic conception of thought as calculation: “When a man reasons, he does nothing else but conceive a sum total from addition of parcels,” he wrote, “for REASON … is nothing but reckoning. . . .”
it only remained to work out the univocal parcels or ‘bits’ w which this purely syntactic calculator could operation; *Leibniz, the inventor of the binary system, dedicated himself to working out the necessary unambiguous formal language..
leibniz thought he had found a universal and exact system of notation, an algebra, a symbolic language, a ‘universal characteristic’ by means of which ‘we can assign to every object its determined characteristic number’.. in this way all concepts could be analyzed into a small number of original and undefined ideas; ..all knowledge could be expressed and brought together in one deductive system. On the basis of these numbers and the rules for their combination all problems could be solved and all controversies ended: ‘if someone would doubt my results’ leibniz said, ‘i would say to him: ‘let us calculate, sir’ and thus by taking pen/ink, we should settle the question.’
oi.. of math and men ness
like a computer .. program about to be written.. leibniz claims: since, however, the wonderful interrelatedness of all things makes it extremely difficult to formulate explicitly the characteristic numbers of individual things, i have invented an elegant artifice by virtue of which certain relations may be rep’d and fixed numerically and which may thus then be further determined in numerical calculation
once the characteristic numbers are established for most concepts, mankind will then possess a new instrument which will enhance the capabilities of the mind to far greater extent than optical instruments strengthen the eyes, and will supersede the microscope and telescope to the same extent that reason is superior to eyesight.. w this powerful new tool, the skills which plato could not formalize, and so treated as confused thrashing around, could be recuperated as theory..
oi.. blinding us ness..
In one of his “grant proposals” his explanations of how he could
reduce all thought to the manipulation of numbers
if he had money enough and time
exact same time i’m reading this.. from Rob:
“we’re trying to do to writing and other language arts what we’ve already done to mathematics” medium.com/@hhschiaravall…
“We’re trying to turn something rich and interconnected into something discrete, objective and measurable.”
This much, however, is clear. Aristotle defined man as a rational animal, and since then reason has been held to be of the essence of man. ..if reason can be programmed into a computer, this will confirm an understanding of the nature of man, which Western thinkers have been groping toward for two thousand years but which they only now have the tools to express and implement. The incarnation of this intuition will drastically change our understanding of ourselves. If, on the other hand, artificial intelligence should turn out to be impossible, then we will have to distinguish human from artificial reason, and this too will radically change our view of ourselves. ..
we must try to understand to what extend ai is possible
what we learn about the limits of intelligence in computers will tell us something about the character and extent of human intelligence
.. our use of language, while precise, is not strictly rulelike.. Pascal already noted that the perceptive mind functions “tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules.” Wittgenstein has spelled out this insight in the case of language.
We are unable clearly to circumscribe the concepts we use; not because we don’t know their real definition, but because there is no real “definition” to them.
we need to let go of naming the colour ness et al